• Title of article

    The effect of the air-blowing step on the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems

  • Author/Authors

    Diego Spreafico، نويسنده , , Stefano Semeraro، نويسنده , , Dario Mezzanzanica، نويسنده , , Dino Re، نويسنده , , Massimo Gagliani، نويسنده , , Toru Tanaka، نويسنده , , Hidehiko Sano، نويسنده , , Sharanbir K. Sidhu، نويسنده ,

  • Issue Information
    روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2006
  • Pages
    8
  • From page
    237
  • To page
    244
  • Abstract
    Purpose To evaluate the technique sensitivity of four different adhesive systems using different air-blowing pressure. Methods Four adhesive systems were employed: Clearfil SE Bond [SE] (Kuraray, Japan), G-Bond [GB] (GC Corporation, Japan), Adper Prompt L-Pop [LP] (3M ESPE, USA) and an experimental adhesive, SSB-200 [SSB] (Kuraray, Japan). Twenty-four extracted molars were used. After grinding the coronal enamel surface, the teeth were divided into two equal groups. The first groupʹs teeth were randomly assigned for bonding with the different adhesives using gentle air-blowing (g). For the teeth of the second group, the four adhesive systems were applied using strong air-blowing (s). After storage overnight in 37 °C water, the bonded specimens were sectioned into sticks (1 mm×1 mm wide), which were subjected to microtensile bond strength testing (μTBS) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load at failure of each specimen was recorded and the data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. The surfaces of the fractured specimens were observed using SEM to determine the failure mode. Results The results of the μTBS test showed that the highest bond strengths tended to be with SE for both gentle and strong air-blowing, and the significantly lowest for SSB with strong air streaming. Comparing the two techniques, significant differences were noted only for SSB-200 (P<0.05). For each material, the SEM evaluation did not show distinct differences in the nature of the fractures between the two techniques, except for SSB-200. Conclusions The adhesives tested are not technique sensitive, except SSB-200, with regards to the air-blowing step.
  • Keywords
    Adhesion , Technique sensitivity , Self-etching , Failure mode , All-in-one adhesives , Microtensile bondstrength
  • Journal title
    Journal of Dentistry
  • Serial Year
    2006
  • Journal title
    Journal of Dentistry
  • Record number

    507492